Decker WAS a Replicant!

[Michael]

It was that Origami Unicorn!

"You Did A Man's Job, Sir!"

Director Ridley Scott has finally revealed the answer to a plot twist in his film Blade Runner which has been the topic of fierce debate for nearly two decades.

Movie fans have been divided over whether Harrison Ford's hard-boiled cop character Deckard was not human but a genetically-engineered "replicant" - the very creatures he is tasked with destroying.

Little suspicion was raised by the 1982 original version of the film, based on Philip K Dick's novel: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

But a decade later the Director's Cut edition - although deliberately ambiguous - convinced many that the hero was indeed a replicant and in a Channel 4 documentary Scott at last reveals they are correct.

'He's a replicant'

The acclaimed British director, who also directed Alien, Thelma and Louise and current box-office hit Gladiator, settles the issue when questioned on key aspects of the film's imagery.

In the Director's Cut version, the biggest clue for analysts was the appearance of a unicorn on screen while Deckard is lost in thought.

The image of the mythical creature appears again towards the end of the film when he picks up an origami model discarded by another character, Gaff.

As the replicants had no memories of their own, they had to be implanted, and fans interpreted the appearance of the model as a sign that Gaff knew what Deckard was thinking because it was an image shared by other non-humans.

In Channel 4's documentary On The Edge Of Blade Runner, Scott discusses the scenes and asked what they mean, he confirms with a grin: "He's a replicant".

Another hint in the film comes from the number of replicants which Deckard is hunting.  We find out that six had made their way to earth, one of whom was killed. Deckard is looking for four, begging the question: "Who is the fifth replicant?".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm

Now that I have processed this, it makes sense--after all, Roy had showed nothing but antipathy for humans--he had slaughtered so many with not a second thought... but he saved Decker.  If you ignore the voice over added to the theatrical release, it made more sense that there was a FLASH OF RECOGNITION... Roy realized he was one of them, and so saved him.  The "love at first sight" also makes sense between Decker and the female Replicant.  Okay.

[Reggie]

Hi, I'm new, just started listening and just signed up to post....but enough about me, lol.

I'm really glad to see this on top of the posts in the general sci-fi discussion, because this is a topic that's been bugging me A LOT.

I read the book pretty early on in my pursuit of classic sci-fi...or any sci-fi outside of Star Wars really, (I'm 23, so I probably got a pretty late start compared to most of you), so I was a bit younger and maybe not as thoughtful about what I read then as I am now...but the truth of the matter is that I did not see ANYTHING in the book that made me question if Decker was a replicant, and even less in the movie to make me think this was an issue.

I know that in the book there were parts where his humanity was brought into question, but anything that we as readers were meant to pick up on as being foreshadowing or hinting at some deeper meaning was completely lost on me.

Part of me can't help but feel that we have these questions about whether or not he is a replicant because we are told we should be thinking about them.

The specifics you point out in the movie, though, make a lot of sense to me, and if Ridley Scott says so about his own movie then it must be true!

But even then...is his movie just his own interpretation, or is he drawing from some official answers somewhere?

So, I guess what I'm wondering is if any of you fountains of sci-fi knowledge  have anything specific to share about this debate...or if it's not actually a debate reasons why it was so completely over my head.

  

[wakela]

Now that I have processed this, it makes sense--after all, Roy had showed nothing but antipathy for humans--he had slaughtered so many with not a second thought... but he saved Decker.  If you ignore the voice over added to the theatrical release, it made more sense that there was a FLASH OF RECOGNITION... Roy realized he was one of them, and so saved him.  The "love at first sight" also makes sense between Decker and the female Replicant.  Okay.

Good observations.  I hadn't thought of them.

Also:
-- IIRC, Deckard mentions in the voice over that lacking true memories, Replicants collect photographs.  Roy Batty asks Leon "Did you get your precious photos."  Photographs also cover every available square inch of Deckard's apartment.

--In some shots Scott uses some kind of lighting technique to make the replicants' and the fake owl's eyes glow like a cat's.  Deckard's eyes also glow in one shot. 

--Rachel asks, "Did you ever point that machine at yourself, Mr. Deckard?" Referring to the Voit-Kamph replicant detector.

--How else could Deckard have survived getting beaten up by Leon. 

I supposed that Deckard is the sixth skinjob, and that they somehow captured him and implanted the memories of the bladerunner that Leon shot.

I'm with you that he's a replicant, especially if Scott says he is.  But to me that makes they movie somehow less satisfying.  I can't quite put my finger on it.  I know it raises some interesting concepts, but it's kind of like Deckard's being a replicant isn't what the movie is about.  Having him be a replicant raises more questions, but the movie doesn't really deal with them.  Maybe it's that I can't identify with a replicant main character, so now I'm one more step removed from the movie.

Though now that I think of it, maybe I'm supposed to be more removed.  It's the voice over that pulls you in.

Unrelated, but amazing:  The scientific banter between Roy Batty and Mr. Tyrell about how to make a replicant live longer was improvised, as was Roy's dying rooftop soliloquy.

[Leon Kensington]

In the movie I thought that Decker was a Replicant but Boomer style (so he didn't know he was but had a feeling that he might be) but in the book I thought he was just a human.  Otherwise why would they have taken him on the whole fake station thing.

[Reggie]

Yeah, cool, more awesome points and more proof that it was all over my head!

 

[jahnke]

I'm with you that he's a replicant, especially if Scott says he is.  But to me that makes they movie somehow less satisfying.  I can't quite put my finger on it.  I know it raises some interesting concepts, but it's kind of like Deckard's being a replicant isn't what the movie is about.  Having him be a replicant raises more questions, but the movie doesn't really deal with them.  Maybe it's that I can't identify with a replicant main character, so now I'm one more step removed from the movie.

I found the directors cut a lot more satisfying. The implication was there in the original movie (with all the voice overs) and that original ending left me cold where they were both driving away in the rain and he was wondering how much time she had left... BUT the two replicants escaping realizing what they were and fleeing for their lives before someone came to hunt them down as Deckard realizes that he is a replicant as well makes the movie much more satisfying for me in the end.

The story for me was all about what it took for someone to be human. All the components of the replicants were biological and the only way they could tell they were not human was by testing emotional response. And scene where Deckard asks Tyrell how can it not know what it is to me was the point around which the entire move spins. That self discovery was even more powerful to me than the one where Deckard comes to understand that Replicants are human enough as he runs off to be with Rachael. Gaff lets him run which was the element of human acceptance in the film which works well enough for me. I remember going to the release of the directors cut and walking from the theater much more satisfied than the original film, which I had watched just before going to the screening.

[eytanz]

Now that I have processed this, it makes sense--after all, Roy had showed nothing but antipathy for humans--he had slaughtered so many with not a second thought... but he saved Decker.  If you ignore the voice over added to the theatrical release, it made more sense that there was a FLASH OF RECOGNITION... Roy realized he was one of them, and so saved him. 

I read an interesting article somewhere on the web (I don't remember where, unfortunately) about this very point. The author argued that having Decker be a human makes this scene a lot more powerful - if Decker is a human, then the scene (and therefore, the movie) is about how a human (Decker) and a replicant (Roy), both originally entirely hostile to the other race, manage to form a common understanding, and acknowledge the value of each others lives. Roy coming to respect a human enough to save him is a powerful moment.

If Decker is a replicant, than the entire movie shifts meaning - it is no longer a conflict between humans and replicants, it's just an internal fight between replicants. Roy doesn't come to learn anything new - he starts out valuing only replicant life, and ends up valuing only replicant life. Decker learns a bit more, but his message is basically "be loyal to your race".

[Leon Kensington]

But, is that not a good message to some extent.

Replace race with friends and is it not a message that more people should listen to?

[Michael]

I just don't see what Decker had done to endear himself to Roy--Sebastian had actually been nice to them and they killed him--Decker had actually murdered all of Roy's friends and his lover.  If ever a human needed killing, from Roy's perspective, it was Decker.  It makes no sense to me that Roy "formed a bond" with him -- unless that was a bond of common blood.  Recognizing him as "one of them" makes sense to me--otherwise Roy betrayed what he was about.

[eytanz]

But, is that not a good message to some extent.

Replace race with friends and is it not a message that more people should listen to?

Well, but keep it as "race" and you have a problem. No matter how you see this issue, I don't think Blade Runner can be interpreted as a conflict between two groups of friends, but as a conflict between two races or species.

Michael's point is good, though. And I should say that I'm not entirely sure that I fully accept the way of looking at things I was recounting above. I just thought it was an interesting take.

[ajames]

Be loyal to your race...

But, is that not a good message to some extent.

Replace race with friends and is it not a message that more people should listen to?

Or you could replace "loyal" with "true" and "race" with "school" and you'd have the makings of a hit song.

I had never really considered Deckard could be a replicant.  Like a replicant in some ways, yes, but not actually one.  As this movie is about the line between human and non-human, having a central character who skirts that line made the movie all the more intriguing, and I think it is no mistake that the director waited all this time before saying that Deckard was a replicant.

I actually think the movie is better leaving this point ambiguous.  Maybe it won't be very long before Ridley Scott comes out with another statement, such as "I was just kidding about Deckard being a replicant.  Or was I?"

[eytanz]

Or you could replace "loyal" with "true" and "race" with "school" and you'd have the makings of a hit song.

[scottjanssens]

For what it's worth, the screenwriter has always said Decker WASN'T a replicant.  This is a question that can't be answered.  The writer says no, the director says yes.

I prefer to think he isn't to avoid plot holes opening up.  Why is Decker so weak compared to the other replicants, he gets his ass kicked by a pleasure model.  If he's the same generation as Rachel that means he's younger than four-years-old, probably two or less.  This leads to questions of whether he was ever actually a Blade Runner.  If so, how long did he work before he taking retirement?  Was he given the memories of a real Blade Runner?  Why is he allowed to live freely while Tyrell keeps close tabs on Rachel?  Is there something going on between Tyrell Corp and the Police?  Is it possible that Decker is not a Tyrell Corp replicant?  If he is a replicant why is he not on the list of replicants to be retired?  The police chief added Rachel to the list despite the fact she posed no inherent danger.  Perhaps the Chief didn't know Decker is a replicant (not likely) but Gaff does (or finds out).

Basically, for me, it comes down to: if Decker was a replicant they told the wrong story.

[Russell Nash]

The "Final Cut" will be released on DVD.  I have the directors cut on VHS, but nothing on DVD.  I'm thinking of getting the DVD pack with all three versions.  The big collectors 5-disc set is a little overkill, but I wouldn't complain if someone gave it to me.

[Michael]

Disc Five
WORKPRINT VERSION
This rare version of the film is considered by some to be the most radically different of all the Blade Runner cuts. It includes an altered opening scene, no Deckard narration until the final scenes, no "unicorn" sequence, no Deckard/Rachel "happy ending," altered lines between Batty (Rutger Hauer) and his creator Tyrell (Joe Turkell), alternate music and much more. Also includes:

Commentary by Paul M. Sammon, author of Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner
Featurette "All Our Variant Futures: From Workprint to Final Cut"

Now that I would like to see. All the time, money and effort into recutting a 25 year old film... Couldn't he have given us something new instead?  Phillip K. Dick wrote a lot of stories, and Nathan Fillion could play Deckerd easily.   I mean rather than re-milking the same old cow again.  I already owned the original and then bought the Directors Cut... I don't think I need a "Director's Re-Cut Cut"